RAKESH(Not Applicable) vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) — CWP/3500/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010109862026

Filing Number

CWP/9340/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

CWP/3500/2026

Registration Date

20-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 26-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAKESH(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Onkar Jairath,Anshul Jairath,Anshul Jairath, ,Neha Thakur,Piyush Mehta,Anshul Jairath

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable)

    Adv. AG 1123

  2. 2.The State of Himachal Pradesh(Not Applicable)

  3. 3.The Director, Directorate of School Education(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan GoelView PDF

    Summary of CWP No. 3500/2026 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of the writ petition filed by Sh. Rakesh against the State of Himachal Pradesh by directing the Competent Authority to decide the petitioner's representation within eight weeks, considering the averments made therein. The court did not adjudicate the substantive issues but instead mandated timely consideration of the representation by the appropriate department. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Notice Before Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/3500/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of CWP No. 3500/2026 The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of the writ petition filed by Sh. Rakesh against the State of Himachal Pradesh by directing the Competent Authority to decide the petitioner's representation within eight weeks, considering the averments made therein. The court did not adjudicate the substantive issues but instead mandated timely consideration of the representation by the appropriate department. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case